Skip to comments.Houston man whose case advanced gay rights dies (John Geddes Lawrence of Lawrence v. Texas)
Posted on 12/27/2011 10:24:11 AM PST by a fool in paradise
In the eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may not criminalize private homosexual conduct, courts and legislatures across the country have struggled to define gay rights.
The debate changed for both sides after a watershed 2003 Supreme Court ruling in a case that originated in Houston. The court voted 6-3 to guarantee privacy rights for gay men and lesbians - reversing a 1986 decision that permitted states to outlaw homosexual acts, even in homes.
The Houston man at the center of the groundbreaking decision died last month of a heart condition. John Geddes Lawrence was 68.
When the Supreme Court considers whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry, Lawrence's lawyer says, Lawrence v. Texas will be a factor...
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
These were not nice men. They had a rap sheet for hard drugs and other offenses. It's akin to holding up Rodney King as an honorable man.
Moral Absolutes PING
“He made America safe for sodomy” will look great on his tombstone.
The average age of male death in the USA is 76.
John Laurence, one of the two men in the Texas sodomy case, just died at 68.
Tyrone Garner, the other man, died at age 39. http://www.chron.com/default/article/Defendant-in-sodomy-ruling-wasn-t-politically-1522838.php
This is additional evidence that the Texas sodomy law was the humane answer, and that Justice Kennedy was wrong.
Well, there was the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, which lasted for close to 1,000 years, depending on how you count it. They sanctioned homosexual relationships between men, as well as between men and adolescent boys, but they were often between freemen and slaves or servants. Documentation of lesbian relationships isn’t as frequent, but the attitude appears to have been that these were also permitted, provided they were discreet.
who can forget the Sodomy Six
“He made America safe for sodomy will look great on his tombstone.”
He’ll be buried with his ass sticking out of the ground; it’ll double as a bike rack.
Gay rights? I suppose everyone has a right to pursue being happy, but I don’t think it’s a right in and of itself.
8 years since our republic began its descent into hell with speed and purpose.
Scalia was 100% correct about the overturning of Bowers vs Hardwick.
I think DC politicians want “anything goes” marriage in order to give them a green light to have as many extramarital affairs as they like.
The politicians do not care about homosexuals, politicians want to be able to expand their sexual conquests under the guise of “civil rights.”
(see bill clinton, newt gingirch, mayflower madem, former governor of NY state, the other former governor of NY state, and so on and so on)
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
As far as lesbians go, most people find them far less offensive than gay men. Even the Bible makes a distinction. Most people aren't nearly as offended by lesbians as they are by gay men. That's been the case for thousands of years. I don't know if you're religious, but nevertheless some passages in the Bible make it clear than man on man sex is an abomination, and those texts have been around for a long time.
In present times when someone says that they find homosexuality repulsive there talking about gay men the majority of the time.
Nope. Both male and female same sex activity is condemned.
Romans 1: 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural , 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice ; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful ; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
This is talking specifically about men. Leviticus mention both men and women instead of using the word “ man” to mean everyone.
In Romans 1 I think Paul was expressing an “ick” factor concerning the women rather than making a commandment, if you will.
I think the Bible mentions homosexuality about 10 times. In each case it's talking about men having sex with men, save the example you gave, which I don't see as making gay men and lesbians equally repulsive.
I think your example (Romans) mentions lesbians in passing; more as an opinion that as a commandment. “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” It's an “ick” thing that Paul is expressing, though since it's in the bible, you might probably conclude that it's a divinely inspired ick. But reading it as it's written, it's obvious Paul thinks it's wrong, but not so obvious that this is a fact.
And I think that the first chapter of Romans is the only place where lesbians are mentioned in any way. All the rest are talking about gay men. I could be wrong about that. But man was made in the image of God, and women made in the image of man. That could be why male homosexuality is seen as such an abomination.
The Romans passage clearly lumps “unnatural” relations of women with all those other things that “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
Assuming one thinks “ick” is worthy of death, I’d be careful picking my teeth in public (another “ick”) in fear of death by the hand of God.
The biblical male case almost always includes the female case. If it’s wrong for a guy it’s wrong for a girl.
Since sex is ONLY permissable within the bounds of marriage, and since marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, then any sex other than that between a man and a woman (who are married to each other) is sinful.
Lesbianism is just as bad as homosexuality.
Actually, homosexuality in ancient Rome wasn’t an “experiment.” Nor was it restricted to the army out in foreign lands. It was an accepted choice of Romans, from the well-to-do to the poorest. Homosexual marriages were considered normal, if law records are to be trusted. Such relationships were never forbidden; there are no laws on record which outlaw homosexuality in either the Roman armies, or in their civil society. It was just another taste, apparently. Our modern sense of distaste is just that - modern.
It may have been the the Romans were actually adopting the patterns of the Greeks, who were considered to have set the foundations of a civil society. Plato himself thought, and wrote, that the more more advanced a society, the more it would accept homosexual unions. Only despotic societies would outlaw homosexual relationships, Plato wrote, because the despot would feel so threatened by the intense male-male friendships that these unions created.http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp
You can find a great deal of information about ancient attitudes towards homosexuality on the web. Obviously, a lot of it has been produced by gay historians, so they have a point to make. But you can judge the historical evidence they’ve uncovered for yourself. It’s generally recognized that its was the attitude of the Christian Church towards homosexuality which overwhelmed the far more accepting approach of the ancient pagans.
All that the historical evidence means is that it gets rid of one reason to oppose societal acceptance of homosexuality. At least two major societies - one of them lasting for centuries - not only permitted, but approved of, homosexuality. That acceptance of same-sex relationships is part of the reason the Church condemned Roman civilization.
I agree with you about a different attitude towards lesbianism. In many societies, such relationships between women were actually encouraged. I always though it was a practical decision. If you’re on a campaign and out of town for a few years, you won’t have to give your name to a bastard if your wife is involved within another woman.
Even back in the 90’s, the big H had a “thriving” homo community. I was a taxi driver there for a short while, and I didn’t like to pick up fares in the homo district, Montrose. They were thieves and would try to “jump the check” by getting out under the pretext of picking up a friend and then never returning. Only happened to me once, and the few other times, I demanded a deposit before they got out of the cab. I seldom met any fag there who was honorable.